My Take on the Government Question

Break every political argument down in our nation's history and it boils down to one question: What is the proper role of government?

Rarely does one need six degrees of separation to reach this central issue.

Our citizens have argued incessantly about government's role from the beginning via the Federalist Papers, fought a Civil War over the question, and continue to spew ugly rhetoric (again with the socialism label?) over just this one basic issue.

(You care about gay marriage? Well, let me interest you in a vigorous "Defense of Marriage Act" vs. "Full Faith and Credit Clause" debate, which, you guessed it, brings us right back to GO.)

I offer one person's reasoned take on this, our nation's perpetual pebble in the shoe. My short answer is that the people as a whole (although they are loath to admit it) have about the size of government with which they are comfortable. After all, it came from representatives government.

My goals: First, to explain how I see the differences between government and private enterprise. Although they are different, neither is inherently evil, but they both have a vital role to play. Second, to give my take on "the proper role of government."

THE PLAYERS

Both sides boast Nobel winners and celebrated thinkers who advocate each side. Free Marketers point to Milton Friedman as the final voice. New Dealers sing the praises of John Maynard Keynes. Laisse faire vs. New Deal. Roosevelt vs. Reagan. O'Reilly vs. Olbermann. Private business vs. Government regulation. There are plenty of statistics to fuel each side, thus insuring that neither can ever "win" the debate in a measurable sense.

An over-simplification of the two sides can be heard when listening to campaign talk or talk-radio -- that there are those who think government solves all and those who think it solves nothing. I am not sure where the majority stands, but I meet very few who feel government is the exact size it should be. That could be from a love to complain.

Although both sides hold to fallacies that I aim to debunk, only one side (the anti-government types) have chosen to take a no-compromise stance. I consider the strategy to be a feeble attempt to take us back to a time in which we no longer live. It also solves nothing.

THE DIFFERENCE AS I SEE IT

Each part brings its own obstacles, efficiencies and strengths. The difference is in the moral imperative.

Many of the most vocal of a very agitated minority believe in the inherent incompetence of meddling government. National defense excluded, this school of thought essentially demands that government not interfere in anything (or at least a bare minimum). Although I feel safe saying none of them would advocate six-year-old workers in coal mines, their tolerance for government does not raise much further.

There is a feeling that government grew too large over the years and that only blatant attempts to destroy it as an institution will mitigate its further expansion. This assumes also that none of that expansion was necessary to accommodate the many changes inherent in technological advancements, population increase and any other change over the past two centuries.

(I would go into the Commerce Clause, its overuse and the resulting backlash against it, but I want a few people to finish reading this post).

The fallacy is that private enterprise is always preferable. Absolutist arguments really amount to casuistry, so I won't dwell on it.

My take is that the market is amoral. It is not immoral. It is also not moral. It is profit-driven, and, as a result, has allowed our economy to soar. The market is also absolutely not the hand of God - especially considering that the invisible hand likes to dunk us in the mud if left unchecked (see 1929-1938). The fact it can be mitigated at all undermines arguments of divine tampering.

But, although the drive for profit leads to some efficiency advantages and wonderful economic prosperity, the market is less capable of taking morality-driven initiatives and is prone to booms and busts.

This is why the health care debate has been labeled as a moral imperative by supporters of reform. Incentive for profit has absolutely led to higher rates of denials and searches for pre-existing conditions by insurance carriers.

As usual, when there is a hole unfilled by private business that leads to moral outrage, the government attempts to fill the gap without profit. The government acts for the betterment of customers deemed "unprofitable." We do not do this to make a profit, but because it is moral. It must be done with fiscal responsibilty, but it must be done. And, sometimes, that means a tax increase.

Allow me to reiterate that I do not believe private industry has no role to play or that it is anything less than crucial to our system. But it would be foolish to expect the market to account for morality. Government agencies foot the bill to save victims of hurricanes because no money can be made to offer that service privately. (Excuse me sir, but we just saved your family and helicopters aren't cheap... so where do I send the bill?). Still, tea-bag loving folks burn FEMA in effigy. (I am unsure how many of them live in hurricane hot-spots).

The fact that many will point to FEMA's failures as a hole in the argument simply drives home the point that agency heads must believe their departments are important and believe in the role that agency plays. Katrina was, in my view, an example of what happens when people who do not believe in the legitimacy of government or believe it to be inherently meddlesome RUN a government or agency. (Brownie, you did a hell of a job).

SIZE DOES MATTER

Perceived government inefficiency, and that of large private industry, can be attributed to size. Government is further hampered by legislative restrictions simply because moral imperatives come with strings and compromises. I get that. And, in some areas, government is less efficient. That is absolutely true.

Inefficiency is also a product of size. Ideological free marketers too often omit that very large private industries (insurance companies, for example) are every bit as inefficient as a government agency. Anyone who has had to contest a denied claim can attest to that. The idea that "government paperwork" will gum up the works is laughable in light of all the various forms currently needed. At lease government forms will be uniform.

The reason for inefficiency in government and large companies? People run both. The only way to run a big operation is by layering, bureaucracy, committees, etc. That will happen to any very large entity regardless of its status as private or public.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The debate is not helped by anyone who feels the government can never be a part of a solution. The debate is not helped by anyone who feels only complete government takeover will solve either. However, there is ample support for a public "option," which is a compromise. Democrats have pushed a rational solution to preserve private enterprise in health insurance while plugging the holes it has created. The opposition only offers an argument that nothing tainted with government stink can ever work.

So, what is the proper role of government? It's whatever needs to be done to make a profitable system honest and compassionate within the tolerance of the population. In the case of health care, government intervention is long overdue. And the argument that "government is not good at anything" is short on substance.

I know I will never convince the "ideologically certain" who may read this. However, it makes sense to me. I am inherently suspicious of "absolutist" arguments and that is what the tea-baggers bring.

In the meantime, real solutions with all options on the table are being considered. And that makes me happy.